Designing a mixed methods study in primary care

John Creswell, Michael D. Fetters, Nataliya V. Ivankova

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS: We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS: Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed-diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred, between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION: We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)7-12
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of family medicine
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Research
Interviews
Behavioral Sciences
Social Sciences
Checklist
Research Design

Keywords

  • Data collection, methods
  • Investigative techniques
  • Qualitative research
  • Research design/methods
  • Social sciences

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. / Creswell, John; Fetters, Michael D.; Ivankova, Nataliya V.

In: Annals of family medicine, Vol. 2, No. 1, 01.01.2004, p. 7-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Creswell, John ; Fetters, Michael D. ; Ivankova, Nataliya V. / Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. In: Annals of family medicine. 2004 ; Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 7-12.
@article{55124716b7a648bdbd05c31c06b50516,
title = "Designing a mixed methods study in primary care",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS: We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS: Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed-diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred, between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION: We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.",
keywords = "Data collection, methods, Investigative techniques, Qualitative research, Research design/methods, Social sciences",
author = "John Creswell and Fetters, {Michael D.} and Ivankova, {Nataliya V.}",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1370/afm.104",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "7--12",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Designing a mixed methods study in primary care

AU - Creswell, John

AU - Fetters, Michael D.

AU - Ivankova, Nataliya V.

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS: We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS: Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed-diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred, between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION: We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.

AB - BACKGROUND: Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS: We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS: Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed-diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred, between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION: We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.

KW - Data collection, methods

KW - Investigative techniques

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Research design/methods

KW - Social sciences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2142708198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2142708198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1370/afm.104

DO - 10.1370/afm.104

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 7

EP - 12

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 1

ER -